>DEVI, THE PLAN IS TO BOLT ON ALL THE OTHER BITS TOO, AND TAKE OVER THE
>WHOLE ENTERPRISE! MOTIVATION IS ABOUT _EVERYTHING_. DON
Aargh! Don't shout!
Don, I'm at home at present, so I can't reach up to my shelf and haul out a
snappy Kellian quote re. motivation. But take it from me, PCP assumes that
"Man", (you should forgive the monosexual pronoun, he was writing back in
the 50's), "Man is a form of motion": viz., a psychological (as opposed to
physiological or any other) theory doesn't have to handle motivation: it's
a given.
Eh what? What Kelly meant is analogous to saying that, in a theory of art
criticism, the critic doesn't have to explain the physics and chemistry of
additive or subtractive colour: that's a given, from realms of discourse to
do with the physics or chemistry of pigments with which the critic (who is
concerned with the way a painting is _experienced_) is not concerned. The
range of convenience of artistic criticism doesn't need to include physics
& chemistry.
Similarly, a psychological theory doesn't need to include motivation. You
see how radical Kelly was?
Next, my point about Grand Theories. The philosophical basis underpinning
Kelly's theory he called "constructive alternativism" which the
contemporary post-positivist paradigm now labels "constructivism" quite
possibly because it doesn't share Kelly's sense of humour. In both cases,
"Grand" (= "true for all time, perceivers and places") theories just ain't
possible: a different time, person or environment will make some
alternative theory equally plausible. (Notice how the physicists on whom
"Grand" theories seem to model themselves revise and reverse basic
assumptions as time moves on, Aristotle to Copernicus to Galileo to Newton
to Einstein to Hawkinge. Oh Gawd, and then there's the Indeterminacy
Principle and all the rest of it? You might on the other hand argue that
what applies to physical theories doesn't to psychological, and that would
be an interesting view in itself: let's hear it. Thomas Kuhn _did_
originally restrict his ideas on new paradigms to the physical sciences
only. ) Till you do, though, I can only assume that you're, with (look,
sincerely) deepest respect, missing the point: theories can't be "Grand"
because they always exist to serve a given objective, either for an
individual lay scientist or for the cabal of "official" scientists running
a particular paradigm for a particular purpose at a particular time.
"General" theory, I'm quite happy with; but Kelly's PCT serves that purpose
for me and for other PCP theorists and practitioners, so why seek to
reinvent a perfectly usable theory? Amend, test implications empirically,
revise, by all means: it oughtn't, by definition, to be cast in stone.
> ICH BIN EIN CONSTRUKTIVIST, AUCH! DON AGAIN.
Well, I'll take you at your word. I see you're at Newcastle, New South
Wales: have you had any dealings recently with Beverly Walker and her chums
at Wollongong? She shares our PCP interests as I expect you know.
> (But we'll have to stop meeting like this)
Say that again and I will of course stop this public conversation on the
grounds that it's boring yourself and others! If you don't, though, I'm
ready to continue: who would have thought that e-mail based mailing lists
were such fun?
Kindest regards
Devi Jankowicz